Hi Neelakanta, I'll add check for both flags when I push the code.
Thanks, Zoran -----Original Message----- From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 10:44 AM To: Zoran Milinkovic Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: skip sending admin ops to slave PBE in 1safe2PBE mode [#1652] Hi zoran, yes, agree that main goal is the performance. For completeness and uniformity in the code it is good to have. Thanks, Neel. On Wednesday 30 December 2015 04:04 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: > Hi Neelakanta, > > I intentionally skipped these two flags. As I mentioned for class create and > class delete, that flags are already covered, and adding new check is only a > performance improvement (skipping unnecessary admin op). > > The main goal of the ticket is to solve PBE hanging in 1saf2PBE mode, which > is solved by the first patch. Class create and class delete "fix" is extra > code for performance improvement and does not have anything with the ticket. > > OPENSAF_IMM_NOST_FLAG_ON and OPENSAF_IMM_NOST_FLAG_OFF are also covered, and > flags are not often used. So, that's why I skipped adding extra check on > these two flags. > > Thanks, > Zoran > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 10:18 AM > To: Zoran Milinkovic > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for imm: skip sending admin > ops to slave PBE in 1safe2PBE mode [#1652] > > Hi zoran, > > Reviewed and tested the patch. > Ack, with the following comments, no need to send for another review. > > skip sending adminoperation for the below flags also. > > OPENSAF_IMM_NOST_FLAG_ON > OPENSAF_IMM_NOST_FLAG_OFF > > /Neel. > > On Tuesday 29 December 2015 06:28 PM, Zoran Milinkovic wrote: >> Summary: imm: skip sending admin ops to slave PBE in 1safe2PBE mode >> [#1652] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): 1652 Peer Reviewer(s): >> Neelakanta, Hung Pull request to: Zoran Affected branch(es): >> opensaf-4.6.x, opensaf-4.7.x, default(5.0) Development branch: >> default(5.0) >> >> -------------------------------- >> Impacted area Impact y/n >> -------------------------------- >> Docs n >> Build system n >> RPM/packaging n >> Configuration files n >> Startup scripts n >> SAF services y >> OpenSAF services n >> Core libraries n >> Samples n >> Tests n >> Other n >> >> >> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> changeset 8c9c5a4632ec0bca44dd79c2f01abcface87a4e2 >> Author: Zoran Milinkovic <[email protected]> >> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:24:42 +0100 >> >> imm: skip sending admin ops to slave PBE in 1safe2PBE mode [#1652] >> >> When PBE is running in 1safe2PBE mode, syncing admin op to the second >> PBE >> will be skipped. Adding OPENSAF_IMM_FLAG_2PBE1_ALLOW check to >> OPENSAF_IMM_PBE_CLASS_CREATE, OPENSAF_IMM_PBE_CLASS_DELETE and >> OPENSAF_IMM_PBE_UPDATE_EPOCH will skip sending unnecessary admin op to >> slave >> PBE. >> >> >> Complete diffstat: >> ------------------ >> osaf/services/saf/immsv/immpbed/immpbe_daemon.cc | 19 +++++++++++++++---- >> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> >> Testing Commands: >> ----------------- >> >> >> Testing, Expected Results: >> -------------------------- >> When testing the patch in 1safe2PBE mode, check that messages related to >> 2PBE in syslog are not repeated due to absence on the second PBE. >> Examples of repeated messages have been given in the ticket >> >> >> Conditions of Submission: >> ------------------------- >> Ack from Hung and Neelakanta >> >> >> Arch Built Started Linux distro >> ------------------------------------------- >> mips n n >> mips64 n n >> x86 n n >> x86_64 n n >> powerpc n n >> powerpc64 n n >> >> >> Reviewer Checklist: >> ------------------- >> [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any >> checkmarks!] >> >> >> Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): >> >> ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank entries >> that need proper data filled in. >> >> ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. >> >> ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header >> >> ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. >> >> ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your headers/comments/text. >> >> ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. >> >> ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files >> (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) >> >> ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. >> Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. >> >> ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be removed. >> >> ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace crimes >> like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. >> >> ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other >> cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. >> >> ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is >> too much content into a single commit. >> >> ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) >> >> ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; >> Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be pulled. >> >> ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as threaded >> commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. >> >> ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear indication >> of what has changed between each re-send. >> >> ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the >> comments and change requests that were proposed in the initial review. >> >> ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) >> >> ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the >> the threaded patch review. >> >> ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any results >> for in-service upgradability test. >> >> ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch series >> do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
